Medicine is not an exact science; nor is there complete precision. Every surgical operation involves uncalculated risks and merely because a complication had ensued, it does not mean that the hospital or the doctor was guilty of negligence.
The Supreme Court has laid down principles which must be kept in view when deciding whether a medical professional is guilty of medical negligence or not. The Court held that it would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and merely because one doctor disagrees with another he cannot be called negligent.
A medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he may honestly believe to afford greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but beset by higher chances of failure. Given this situation, merely because a doctor looking to the gravity of illness took a higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering, but which unfortunately did not yield the desired result, it does not tantamount to negligence.
The Court also held that the medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.
It is imperative that the doctors must be able to perform their professional duties with a free mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment